Low back pain patients’ perceived effectiveness of utilizing complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review of qualitative studies is to explore patients' perceived effectiveness of utilizing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the treatment and/or management of low back pain (LBP). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception until May 2020. Eligible articles included qualitative data about LBP patients' perceptions of using CAM. RESULTS: Of 1,567 items, 1,542 items were excluded; the remaining 25 articles were included in this review. Three themes emerged as follows: physical benefits; mental health benefits; and negative or no perceived effectiveness of CAM on patients with LBP. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores perceptions of CAM effectiveness among patients with LBP. These findings provide valuable information to CAM and non-CAM practitioners regarding the importance of individualized patient care based on their preferences, values, needs, and perspectives. Further exploration could include practitioners' perceptions of CAM and their impact on the patient-practitioner relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".